He did not take any questions, however very few of the other speakers did either.

Hopefully we’ll have video to post here soon.

No word yet what Penn and Teller think.

UPDATE: here is a photo of James Randi and Mike Mann. Mike looks a bit starstruck.

This might make a good caption contest.

UPDATE2: I’m actually in Houston tonight, and dashed off this posting earlier on my way to a meeting, and in my haste neglected to mention that the report was from Robert Scheaffer, one of the speakers there and I added the links to WUWT articles. That oversight has since been fixed. The photo above is also his. -Anthony

Post navigation

148 thoughts on “The Amazing Mann gives no pause”

Is he deliberately lying? Or is he delusional? Does he think the pause is a temporary, difficult to explain phenomenon, but he will be proven right in the end? Or does he genuinely deny the evidence in front of him? Perhaps he believes declining temperatures are a big oil conspiracy?
When does he predict it will no longer be possible to show declining temperatures since 2002?http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/trend
Inquiring minds would like to know.

Tap dancing waiting for proof which never comes. The sign of some one desperate to have his dogma accepted as proof which flies in the face of empirical evidence. Pretty sad that he continues to discount real world evidence and instead demands that his belief in a failed set of models is all that is needed to change the entire worlds opinion. – Sir Boab Tree.

When it will be called the Mannopause, he might accept the inconvenient facts. His name will live on for ever then, just like the Maunder Minimum or Dalton Minimum! What else could he possibly want? (Besides a genuine Nobel Price maybe?)

To warm, or not to warm, that is the question.
After the last grand El Niño, on 1998 the Earth stopped warming and started to stay put, statistical analysis shows no significant warming for a longer period, 13 to 16 years?

How long can he maintain the big lie? Like all pathological liars, the doo-doo will eventually hit the fan. What is needed is for quick witted, well informed people to go to these meetings and interject when a blatant falsehood comes up.This should hopefully occur about a third of the way in to the presentation. A group of us overheard the backroom crew of a warmist love-fest event say “Those deniers, they are so well informed and just one good throw away line ruins the whole evening.” Even better is if you “just happened to have” your own supporting document with you. The offending speaker of the BS would not have a leg to stand on. If they are truly an expert, it would be assumed by the audience that they have read your supporting/argument destroying article. The credibility of everything that speaker has said before or after will then be brought in to question. Remember, the Left are paranoid about being found out.

What Mann is displaying unfortunately is common to all mankind and it’s not him being a sneaky toad – it’s cognitive dissonance. Like most people, Mann believes himself to be capable and competent and to believe evidence disproving CAGW would mean he isn’t capable and competent; therefore to reduce the dissonance he ignores that the contrary evidence doesn’t exist and that people who are against the CAGW hypothesis are in the employ of Big Oil.
We like to believe that scientists are all about the data but believing that is shortsighted – scientists are people first and as such have all the human failings. This is how science has been from the very beginning. Max Planck famously said science advances one funeral at a time – those expecting Michael Mann to suddenly see the light I expect will be disappointed. Well after the CAGW phenomenon has passed from the public eye, Mann will still maintain that it’s real and it’s just a matter of time (see Ehrlich, Paul). All the evidence to the contrary will never convince him otherwise. I almost feel bad for the guy… almost.

“Like a creationist, he uses arguments he knows to be false, but the audience doesn’t.”
Anthony, I must protest. Any creationist in particular? Any argument in particular? This seems an overgeneralization and, well, a cheap shot.
I am a creationist in that I believe in special creation. I do not lie to my audience (don’t really have one though I don’t shy away from discussing the subject), don’t dogmatically believe in a young earth or a creation process devoid of evolutionary elements. There are certainly many creationists like me, and I’m sure many are frequent readers and contributors to your excellent blog. It is unfair to characterize us as Mann-like. Not to say there are NO creationists who fit your description.
How about: “Like SOME creationists…”, or, yet more apropos, “Like MANY POLITICIANS…”?

The TAM folks fancy themselves as skeptics and critical thinkers, and in many ways they are, but they have a curious blind spot when it comes to doubting their own abilities and questioning their prejudices. I read it as the hubris of very intelligent people being too impressed with their abilities and needing to have their own special club.

“Surely he must know that the authors themselves disavow that conclusion!! Like a creationist, he uses arguments he knows to be false, but the audience doesn’t.”
The authors of M. et al actually said that their reconstruction was indistinguishable from some of Mann’s, and there are many other modern-reaching reconstructions that have confirmed the hockey stick. If you want to throw out the relative uniqueness of the modern temperature spike, you have to do stupid things like assuming CET is representative of global temps.
I do appreciate your acknowledgment of creationists as the bottom-feeders of even the pseudoscientist community, but how do you think Denning and Spencer are going to take that?

Mann has a bad case of confirmation bias.
He gives a speech in which he states what he wants to believe, sends himself a copy and says: “See! I told you I was right!”
The Mann isn’t a scientist. He’s a hack.

In relation to Cognitive Dissonance and the ‘Mann’
Festinger stated that five conditions must be present if someone is to become a more fervent believer after a failure or disconfirmation:
A belief must be held with deep conviction and it must have some relevance to action, that is, to what the believer does or how he or she behaves.
The person holding the belief must have committed himself to it; that is, for the sake of his belief, he must have taken some important action that is difficult to undo. In general, the more important such actions are, and the more difficult they are to undo, the greater is the individual’s commitment to the belief.
The belief must be sufficiently specific and sufficiently concerned with the real world so that events may unequivocally refute the belief.
Such undeniable disconfirmatory evidence must occur and must be recognized by the individual holding the belief.
The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of disconfirming evidence that has been specified. If, however, the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another, the belief may be maintained and the believers may attempt to proselytize or persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails)

Andres Valencia says:
July 13, 2013 at 4:28 pm
To warm, or not to warm, that is the question.
After the last grand El Niño, on 1998 the Earth stopped warming and started to stay put, statistical analysis shows no significant warming for a longer period, 13 to 16 years?
==================================
This “pause” in upward trend can be one of two things…
A real pause that just lasted to long or;
It shows the fact we have peaked in the larger cycle (thus the longer period) and we are now headed in the reveres trend… the top of a large sign wave is always longer in time period.
The fact we have long since left the normal short cycle trend lines would lead me to believe we are going to get much cooler as we have begun the downward trend to the low part of the larger natural cycle.

Like a creationist, he uses arguments he knows to be false, but the audience doesn’t.
Umm, people of faith can also believe in properly researched science. Many support your endeavors. Maybe a poor analogy.

Um, Anthony, I find references to creationism in posts and comments inappropriate. Taking the ‘science’ side of Darwinism shows ignorance of that debate and opens a topic this website should not be concerned with. Those more familiar with the debate find the same groupthink, gatekeeping, arrogance, career railroading and denying of contrary evidence among Darwinism as is found in climate science (don’t forget whose side the NCSE is on in both cases). Those trying to debate Darwinists on scientific terms are dismissed as ‘creationists’ (whether they are or not) just as climate sceptics are dismissed as ‘deniers’. While both sides of the Darwin debate have their less-than-honest advocates, issuing blanket unsupported ‘creationists lie’ statements are not in keeping with the scientific spirit of this fine website (I am not a creationist or a Darwinist, but see many parallels between that debate and the climate debate).
I realize this comment may open a can of worms. There seem to be many who attempt to prove they are ‘scientific’ by dissing Darwinism critics and calling them creationists. I hope most will support me in suggesting that debate, and the ‘creationist’ term be kept from this website as much as possible.

I believe that Dr. Mann knows full well the tide has turned and that cooling will now take place, but it will be perhaps another decade before the evidence is undeniable. In the mean time he will play the faithful servant of the governments that want CO2 climate catastrophe to be the dominate “truth” of our time — very useful to force the masses to do as they say. We have a world to save after all.
And in ten years? He has a lifetime job and he is storing up those speakers fees. He has no worries.

Gary says:
July 13, 2013 at 5:03 pm
The TAM folks fancy themselves as skeptics and critical thinkers, and in many ways they are, but they have a curious blind spot when it comes to doubting their own abilities and questioning their prejudices. …
Yep. I really enjoy some of the podcasts from many of the TAM’ers, including Brian Dunning and the Skeptics Guide To The Universe crew. But, yeah, when they turn to the subject of global warming…. Mann oh Mann…. That IS a huge blind spot. They were glowing over the Cook / Lewdowski (whatever his name is – if correct statistical methodologies are not important to him…. his name is not important to me) studies without really digging in to examine what the problems with the studies are. They bought the “Skeptical Science spiel hook, line, and stinker. It’s sad, because there used to be one guy on the Skeptics Guide panel, Perry, who was very skeptical of the alarmist side of AGW. But, unfortunately, he passed away several years ago. he is sorely missed.

Climate alarmists like Mann use only the land surface temperature record and ignore sea surface temperatures which when both are combined represent the global surface temperature record. The global surface temperature record shows the pause. The land surface record continues increase and that’s all the alarmists need. Alarmists also frequently site the Berkeley Earth project land temperature record as further proof there is no global temperature pause. This is how the ignore the pause game is played.

@Larry Hamlin –
And don’t forget the land temps are all UHI-affected and therefore falsely ovewrstated.
As for Mann being the last one on the sinking ship, let’s don’t forget that hatemonger der Fuehrer and his satraps at the hate-group EPA can do a lot of damage yet before they are brought down. And no matter who else deserts the ship, der Fuehrer can’t leave it because it is the entire basis for his campaign to destroy the economy and along with it civil liberties.

I think our planet is always warming or cooling, always seeking but never attaining equilibrium.
This present stasis seems to indicate a lack of net input for the self-regulated planet to react against.
I watch for next El Niño or La NIña to emerge with some push, one way or the other.
Afterwards, around a new level, some overshoot followed by dampening oscillations.
This until the next plunge into an ice age.

Ryan claims that global warming continues.
Maybe Ryan can explain why The Economist, and the NY Times, and even über-alarmist Phil Jones all admit that global warming has stopped. The only reason that the NY Times would admit global warming has stopped is because their credibility is more important to them than their global warming propaganda.
Ryan goes on to say that the CET is not indicative of global temperatures. Maybe not. But it is indicative of global temperature trends, and the long-term global warming trend has not accelerated, despite the ≈40% rise in CO2. Therefore, CO2 cannot have the effect claimed. Not that there is no effect from CO2. But at current concentrations, any warming effect is simply too small to measure, and thus “carbon” should be completely disregarded regarding its influence on tax policy.
===============================
Bob Johnston says:
July 13, 2013 at 4:35 pm [ … ]
I think Bob Johnson has Mann’s number. Good post.

I am an atheist and skeptic and have friends who are also atheist skeptics, but some are very liberal and are therefore blinded by politics and believe in CAGW based on their politics alone. A true skeptic doubts CAGW, but James Randi hires some people who are not true skeptics.

I’m a geologist. I think Mann is a cheat and a fraud and a disgrace to the profession (he wears one or two geology degrees). And since no one else can explain it, I believe the Bible account of the formation of everything at the outset. No one will ever disprove it. The rocks don’t go back that far.

We all know “Climate Change” happens (the climate is always changing) and we all know “Creation” happened (we’re here aren’t we), we also know both were/are highly chaotic un-modelable events.
@Don says: July 13, 2013 at 5:00 pm, I’m a creationist like Don.

I’m not a creationist but was taken aback by Anthony’s stereotype as it seemed so out of character. My first reaction was to recheck the byline to ensure the post was from Anthony and sure enough it was. What gives? Bad habit to fall into, my friend.

He’s not alone unfortunately
““A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for meaningful assessments of climate change,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “WMO’s report shows that global warming was significant from 1971 to 2010 and that the decadal rate of increase between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 was unprecedented. Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far reaching implications for our environment and our oceans, which are absorbing both carbon dioxide and heat.”
“Natural climate variability, caused in part by interactions between our atmosphere and oceans – as evidenced by El Niño and La Niña events – means that some years are cooler than others. On an annual basis, the global temperature curve is not a smooth one. On a long-term basis the underlying trend is clearly in an upward direction, more so in recent times” said Mr Jarraud.”http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html

“Maybe Ryan can explain why The Economist, and the NY Times, and even über-alarmist Phil Jones all admit that global warming has stopped. ”
Because they’re not including oceans. And the Jones quote is lifted out of year context. You know, like creationists do.

Ryan, will the oceans warm enough to prevent the next Ice Age?
And if not, then what are we wasting all this verbage and money for?
I suppose fingers need to be exercised and debt incurred, but for Wales?

Regarding “Creationists”: I am a creationist, in that I believe there was a primary cause, a creation, but the context means specifically, “Young Earth Creationists.” There is a difference. I’ve been fighting young earth creationism my whole life, even when I considered myself a fundamentalist. (Howard J. Van Till has clearly presented views that match well to my own.)
As to specific examples, Dr. Henry Morris is documented in his willful and knowing falsehoods, repeated to deceive (or worse). Ken Ham can hardly be considered better.
I believe in God. I hold faith by faith. It is a blind leap that I see as reasonable and rational from several perspectives, including the historical fact that nearly all great minds did too. I follow Jesus. He said he is the truth. If there is any lie in a thing, I reject it as having no part in Jesus. Accordingly, I reject young earth creationism and the fantasies they peddle.
The important point in the analogy is that the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (carbon dioxide cult) proponents act like the young earth creationists. We realists, or skeptics, are called deniers, while they make fun of those who deny the earth is more than 6,000 years old. I don’t think any of it is funny. It is, however, tragic, in both instances.

Ryan,
Phil Jones said: “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has…“. Note that Jones said nothing about the oceans, and the ARGO buoy array also shows ocean cooling.
That is hardly ‘out of context’. Jones admits the planet has cooled, and that was many years ago. The cooling has continued since then. Here are more supporting quotes.
Finally, I note your weak attempt to label me as a Creationist. I am not. But just for fun: you cannot prove that you, the world, and everything else did not come into existence ten seconds ago. In fact, you cannot prove that this is not a memory from a reality that has yet to exist; it could be a fabricated memory waiting to be remembered at a future time, but which never really existed at all. Which may be why Creationists tend to win most of their debates…☺

Larry Hamlin says:
July 13, 2013 at 5:42 pm
Climate alarmists like Mann use only the land surface temperature record and ignore sea surface temperatures which when both are combined represent the global surface temperature record.

Four months ago, in March, Steve McIntyre pointed out the same thing in Mann’s AGU presentation:

“There were two components to Mann’s AGU trick. First, as in Mann and Kump, Mann compared model projections for land-and-ocean to observations for land-only. In addition, like Santer et al 2008, Mann failed to incorporate up-to-date data for his comparison.”http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/02/mikes-agu-trick/

In addition, ferd berple & others pointed out in comments in this WUWT thread, which was devoted to discussing the McIntyre thread, that in one of his March presentations Mann deceptively used only the land surface temperature graphic:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/03/michael-manns-new-trick-pulled-off-at-the-american-geophysical-union-convention-exposed-by-mcintyre/Incidentally, it seems to me that even if the MWP were only local to the Northern Hemisphere, and even only to its high latitudes, its existence there for centuries would be sufficient to undermine alarmist claims about a runaway warming effect from decreased ice-albedo and increased methane emissions from warming permafrost. I urge others to harp on this point.

I am a creationist. I believe the universe was created by the Big Bang which later transformed itself into a popular TV series which has a massive number of adherents who are regular observers, though some just want to look at Penny’s eyes.

Ryan says:
“Maybe Ryan can explain why The Economist, and the NY Times, and even über-alarmist Phil Jones all admit that global warming has stopped. ”
Because they’re not including oceans.
Yes they are. In precisely the same manner that they and others did when they were making wild claims about warming.
The warming, as previously defined by warmists, has been stopped for a period approximating that which it was supposed to have occurred. Deal with it.

Anthony Watts said:
“No word yet what Penn and Teller think.
UPDATE: here is a photo of James Randi and Mike Mann.”
James Randi is a relative skeptic of CAGW in the following article by him (which has an one-word typo on warming versus cooling at one point, but that doesn’t detract from it significantly overall):http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html
Penn & Teller … I’m not sure on but probably are skeptical to a degree, about CAGW claims in general, although I don’t know if they would have had exposure to seeing real temperature history data outside of Mann/media/etc. propagandists. Here’s part of a 2008 comment:“My partner, Teller, and I are professional skeptics. We do magic tricks in our live show in Las Vegas, and we have a passion for trying to use what we’ve learned about fooling people to possibly get a little closer to the truth. Our series on Showtime tries to question everything — even things we hold dear.
James Randi is our inspiration, our hero, our mentor and our friend. Randi taught us to use our fake magic powers for good. Psychics use tricks to lie to people; Randi uses tricks to tell the truth.
During our loose Q&A period this year, someone asked us about global warming, or climate change, or however they’re branding it now. Teller and I were both silent on stage for a bit too long, and then I said I didn’t know.“

The above is for my comment of a minute ago, invisible at the moment. Apparently it is in moderation queue, unlike the edit comment. (Perhaps I hit some word causing filter delay). It’ll probably appear soon.

JimF says: “I believe the Bible account of the formation of everything at the outset. ”
“Everything was empty and then magic happened” is hardly an explanation. Either way, Darwin’s “On The Origin Of Species” does not mention anything about the creation of the universe. Darwin merely deals with continental drift, the fossil records, animals populating islands and how they evolve. Simple and easy to understand concepts.

Doesn’t he run the risk that someone will remember what he said when they later read James Hansen’s admission of a pause? Is it really possible that few of the people he was addressing will discover what’s going on here?
You can go from school board to school board giving speeches claiming evolution is disproved by the second law of thermodynamics and when someone at one meeting points out it’s a false claim you can still make the claim at your next speech because the chances are good that no one there will know what was said at the last one. You see it all the time from Discovery Institute Fellows and other such lobbyists. But I would think that a high profile group like TAM would be a riskier place to pull this stuff. Isn’t it possible that someone within James Randi’s circle might let him know that Mann just lied to him?

Here’s a question/thought.
Has anyone seen or read a peer reviewed paper by Mann that is actually scientifically sound or shown to be reasonably valid? I’m simply curious as to whether he has always been an idiomatic follower of ‘climate fashion’……..

I’d be a bit star-struck meeting Randi, so I don’t blame him for that.
Equally, the organisation he figureheads and the principles they attempt to adhere to are admirable.
It’s interesting that the likes of, say, Penn Jillette who acknolwedges Randi as a major influence and who he respects enormously, has this in his Wikipedia entry:
“Jillette has stated that there is not enough information to make an informed decision on global warming, and that it is an emotion versus logic issue”
That Randi / TAM is a love-in for AGW is not a given.

Scientists discuss and investigate anomalies. Scientists develop and discuss competing hypothesis which is part of the process used to solve scientific problems. Scientists do not have agendas. Scientists abandon hypotheses when the data and analysis does not support the hypothesis in question. Propagandists manipulate data and analysis to push an agenda. Propaganda does not however change reality.
It appears the planet has started to cool. Cooling is only possible if the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was due to solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary clouds. It is difficult to imagine how a propagandist will attempt to explain global cooling.
There are multiple failures/discrepancies (at least five) of the general circulation models and the CO2 forcing theory.
1) There has been a warming plateau for 16 years which is a more serious discrepancy than a lack of warming. As atmospheric CO2 has been increasing continually for the last 16 years and as there is a lag from an increase in forcing to a change in temperature, the general circulation models predicted a wiggly increase in planetary temperature where the wiggles are caused by natural variability in the climate and the gradual increase is caused by the increased forcing due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. What is observed is not only a lack of warming but rather a plateau of planetary temperature. … ….The logical constraint on the forcing mechanisms is different for a lack of warming (planetary temperature is still increasing but less than the general circulation models prediction) and a plateau where there is no increase in planetary temperature. … ….Aerosols or heat hiding in the ocean could explain a lack of warming, where planetary temperatures are increasing but less than model predictions, they cannot explain a plateau of warming. … ….The CO2 forcing mechanism cannot be turned off, if it is real. As atmospheric CO2 is continually increasing the aerosols or the heat hiding in the ocean would need to exactly balance the CO2 forcing and to start in 1998. i.e. There needs to be a mechanism that hides the CO2 forcing that is suddenly turned on in 1998 and that hiding or cooling mechanism must increase overtime to create the observed plateau in planetary temperature. To explain a plateau where there is no increase in planetary temperature during a period when atmospheric CO2 is steadily increasing, the CO2 mechanism must saturate. The logical constraints of the other observational discrepancies indicate that the CO2 mechanism saturated at say 200 ppm, less than the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 level, 280 ppm and that the solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary clouds caused the Little Ice Age cooling and the James Hansen warming in the last 70 years.
Climate Expert von Storch: Why Is Global Warming Stagnating? (William: Why did global warming plateau in 1998?)
Lack of warminghttp://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.htmlhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/19/the-unraveling-of-global-warming-is-accelerating/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/monckton-on-his-smashing-u-n-wall-of-silence-on-lack-of-warming-and-censure/
2) Observed warming is not global. As atmospheric CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere (less than 5% variance by latitude) the potential for CO2 forcing in the atmosphere is roughly the same for all latitudes. The actual forcing at the latitude in question due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 should be proportional to the long wave radiation that is emitted off to space prior to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Based on how the CO2 mechanism works therefore the observed warming should be global with most of the warming occurring in the tropics, based on the CO2 theory. What is observed is that the Northern hemisphere ex-tropics experienced twice as much warming as the planet as a whole and four times as much warming as the tropics. Furthermore the Greenland Ice sheet experienced the most warming on the planet (2 to 3C). The observed latitudinal pattern of pattern cannot be explained by the CO2 mechanism.
Comment:
The aerosol forcing is highest in the Northern Hemisphere. If aerosols in the atmosphere were the reason for a plateau in warming the Northern Hemisphere should have warmed less than the global as a whole. The aerosol forcing does not explain why the Greenland Ice sheet warmed the most of any region on the planet or why there is very little warming in the tropics.http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
3) Tropical tropospheric hot spot is missing. The general circulation models predict that the most amount of warming in terms of change in temperature should be in the tropics in the troposphere at around 8km above the surface of the planet. This warming is due to increased water vapor due to warming of the tropics by the CO2. The warming at 8 km if it occurred would amplify the CO2 forcing. There is no observed tropical tropospheric warming. In addition, analysis of changes in radiation when there is a change in ocean temperature indicates the planet resists forcing changes by an increase or decrease in planetary cloud cover in the tropics which results in more or less radiation being reflected off to space, rather than amplifies forcing changes. These two discrepancies are logically supportive. Part of the reason why there is no tropical tropospheric hot spot is that the clouds in the tropics increase or decrease to resist forcing. Part of the reason why there has not been significant warming in the tropics is planetary cloud cover in the tropics increases to resist forcing.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/
Roy Spencer: Ocean surface temperature is not warming in the tropics.http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TMI-SST-20N-20S.pnghttp://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TMI-SST-MEI-adj-vs-CMIP5-20N-20S-thru-2015.pnghttp://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/02/tropical-ssts-since-1998-latest-climate-models-warm-3x-too-fast/
There is no tropical tropospheric hot spot, Douglass et al’s paper.http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
Lindzen and Choi have again found that the planet resists climate forcing changeshttp://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
4) There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo-climatic record that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes (9 in the interglacial period and 13 in the glacial period). The same regions of the planet that warmed in the last 70 years are the same regions that warmed in the past. An example of the past cyclic warming is the Medieval Warm period which was followed by the Little Ice age when the solar magnetic cycle entered the Maunder minimum. The past warming and cooling cycles were not caused by changes to atmospheric CO2. The general circulation models cannot produce the past warming and cooling cycles that is observed.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gifhttp://www.climate4you.com/
5. The planet has started to cool with the observed cooling and increased precipitation matching the regional pattern of climate change observed in the Little Ice Age. There has been a sudden change to the solar magnetic cycle. Planetary cooling requires a step change in forcing. Solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover is the step change in forcing.http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.pnghttp://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png

A warming pause relates to mere noise at the end of a plot whereas the real backbone of the skeptical argument is how official data show utterly no trend change in our high CO2 era, assuming you plot them simply instead of as propaganda, like this:http://oi56.tinypic.com/2reh021.jpg

Nik,
I love that chart! It clearly shows that when a non-zero baseline chart is used, the long term rising temperature trend shows no acceleration, despite the 40% rise in CO2. A zero baseline chart, OTOH, falsely shows accelerating temperatures. Your trend chart corrects that misconception.
If 40% more CO2 cannot cause global warming to accelerate, then the whole CO2=CAGW conjecture is falsified. CO2 might cause some very minor warming, but any such warming is too small to measure at current concentrations. Therefore, the alarm over “carbon” is a proven false alarm.

Eliza says:
July 13, 2013 at 9:41 pm
“Even Rudd doesn’t believe in Mann anymore LOL”
Before her election Gillard said “There will be no Carbon Tax under the government I lead”; so obviously, KRudd just does what his party usually does before an election. So, the Aussies should be used to that. KRudd will have to denounce Global Warming 10 times harder than Abbott does before anyone would even listen to him. Meaning, We might see the biggest backlash for CO2AGW as a propaganda instrument ever in Australia. They might try to out-skeptic each other.

Talking of delusional? you should take a look at the BBCs Politics Show where Ed Davey has been given a bruising by Andrew O’Neil. O’Neil threw van Storch and Currys names at Davey and Davey was still going on about rising sea levels and disappearing ice caps and severe weather events and on a small part of the £112 extra on energy bills actually gets sent on wind farms etc should be on the BBC IPlayer Well worth a watch

How is Mann going to collect his $10,000 speaking fee or sell his book if he admits that the flat temperature trend is flat.
I guess they are just pointing now to the 0-2000 metre ocean warming at 0.002C (+/- 0.002C error margin) per year since Argo became available. In 100 years, it will have warmed 0.2C (which will be enough for nobody to notice any change at all).

“DirkH says:
July 14, 2013 at 3:32 am”
KRudd (Erless) 747 is on the wire here I reckon. He knows (We all do) the price on carbon (Carbon tax – CT) was not one of his policies, in which he was replaced with Gillard as a result. In part, the CT was a contributing factor in the downfall of Gillard (And the subsequent downturn in jobs, Ford 1200 and Holden 400 (GM) etc). However, with the value of the EU ETS carbon credits at a low price (Which has just gone up a fraction due to an EU Parliament decision), he’s taking political advantage by stating under *his* ETS everything will be cheaper but also save the world. YAY!!!! Rudd (Erless) saves the world. However, what most Aussies don’t know is the plan for the value of credits in the EU ETS to rise to over 40 Euros. It all seems to be happening far too hastily. If the value of EU ETS credits do rise to over 40 Euros *AND* the Aussie $$ drops to “normal” rates against the US$, we will likely see a “proice ohn cahbon” of about AU$70/tonne CO2, at the least!

Eric Worrall says:
July 13, 2013 at 4:14 pm
Is he deliberately lying? Or is he delusional?
==================
I think its a classic case of cognitive dissonance. He is so thoroughly convinced that he is right that he applies a filter to allow only those ‘facts’ that support his belief.

mrsean2k says:
“It’s interesting that the likes of, say, Penn Jillette who acknolwedges Randi as a major influence and who he respects enormously, has this in his Wikipedia entry”
Wikipedia is never the best source for anything climate related. In this instance the words “cherrypicked” and “out of context” come to mind for that quote. Here is the context, pay attention to what was left out.

Dunno about Creationism.
Tell me, please, readers who have experience with therapy: does Michael Mann need serious professional help?
Or is he sitting very nicely, thank you, with a deodorant (“Mann – no sweat!” maybe) in his name coming soon. And a pop single??? [Is that what they’re still called?]
And, perhaps, Dancing on Ice?
No, not /Sarc. at all, unhappily.
= = =
Brian H says:
July 14, 2013 at 12:49 am
Cessation of the 1°F/century warming after the LIA would be most regrettable. Be careful what you wish for!
= = =
My concern too.
Whilst warming has stalled [or perhaps reversed] we still need to feed seven [plus] billion – still rising. If the planet cools, the growing season will shorten – so less food.
UHIs tend to occur, I’ve noticed, where little food is grown.
In the UK [currently 28C or so in the south-east, 17-20C in Scotland] I’ve seen people wearing scarves and coats commuting into the City in early July. That’s 0730 local time, and that’s weather, sure, but it will show up in ‘climate’ soon.
I don’t like ‘hot’ [too old and too insulated about the middle(!) for that] – but that’s what we need, in small doses [say 0.2C/decade – figure plucked at random] – and then, like the biosphere – gently adjust to it.
As Brian H says “Be careful what you wish for!”
Auto

Mike McMillan says:
July 14, 2013 at 10:21 am …
If you have any moves to extricate us from the cesspool of this guys’ making – we are all ears.
(I know he is not working alone but, there are not so many of these willing tools that have brought us to this point) I think you will find that Mann is vilified more than most – except Gore and Suzuki maybe. Quite rightfully in this disenfranchised, unrepresented and ignored citizens’ opinion.
Just a half-hour special on all channels, in a prime-time slot with no-one from the ‘other side’ involved except as objects of ridicule.

Mann is a continuing puzzle. As an advocate of climate change, here he is in full denial of climate change that is happening in real time right under his nose. Yes there is absolutely a pause in the warming and that pause is nothing less than climate change. It isn’t doing what it did before. Damn deniers! 🙂
/irony

Rune says:
July 14, 2013 at 12:23 am: Darwin talks about everything that happened since “Everything was empty and then magic happened” and I’m fine with that. But how and why it happened will always be a mystery. You believe your own way, and I’m fine with that, too.

Sorry..
Caption – Mann to Randi : I got the idea when I saw you massaging the neck of the spoon
…this clearly should have read ….
Caption – Mann to Randi : I got the idea when I saw your friend, Geller massaging the neck of the spoon …

Re equating Mannism to creationism; as the posting by Don says, ‘what sort is meant’?
I would classify myself as an ancient creationist – ie the earth is very old (~4.5byrs).
I do not think the Darwinist hypothesis works at all well, except in very trivial areas of biology.
I tend to view climate alarmism much as I view Darwinism. Both assume the conclusion and then cobble together ‘explantions ‘ to support that predetermined conclusion. Many Darwinistic explanations, earnestly asserted, are often risibly absurd. Darwinism crashed when biochemistry boomed (further details in my book: ‘While the Earth Endures: Creation, Cosmology and Climate change’ foreword by David Bellamy).

dayday says:
July 14, 2013 at 9:42 am
Exactamundo.
Ed Davey – a frightened child who … ‘doesn’t even know which way round his name should be.’ makes wildly unsubstantiated claims and Andrew Neil sticks to flat temps v CO2 rise.
There is the ‘97% consensus’ pushed into the public(unthinking or not) mind. Thanks Lew
John Beddington – NOT a climate scientist. Appeal to non-existent authority
Invoking the precaution principle – with zero evidence
Caution — it’s only going to cost us our future prosperity Ed
Met Orofice — Mwahahahahahaha
Warmest decade on record
The heat — It’s hiding in the ‘deep ocean’. Be afraid
Rising sea levels, melting ice cap(s), increasing frequency of severe weather events.
Climate science is new and incredibly complicated
Putting carbon into the air will raise temps and this is uncontested
Making people’s homes warmer, clean energy that doesn’t pollute, more jobs, healthier people
Denies the incredible cost of their (the coalition, but Labour are as bad) policies
Vast majority of ‘climate’ scientists are saying we are doomed
We are ‘looking at’ technology – water, hydrogen, ccs
Rising sea levels, melting ice cap(s)
———–
Save us from this ignorant child and his ignorant childish friends who are provisioned by infinitely more wise bad-guys than they will ever be…

Mann just told TAM (The Amazing Meeting of the Skeptics Society) that there has been no pause in Global Warming, and says claims that there has been are just ‘Cherry Picking’.

If Michael Mann said words to that effect then he needs to urgently talk to the following people.

Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
———————-
Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
“…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”
———————-
Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct. 2009
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
———————-
Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
“At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that,”
———————-
Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
“It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,”….”We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”
———————-
Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
“I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
———————-
Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
[Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
[A] “Yes, but only just”.
———————-
Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research – 2010
“…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…”
———————-
Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
“…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”
———————-
Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September 2011
“There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”
———————
Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012
“We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
Source: metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012
———————-
Dr. James Hansen – The Economist – 30th March 2013
“the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”…
———————-
Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013
“…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”
———————-
Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013
“…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario….”

Either all the above are wrong or Michael Mann is wrong. I’ll go with consensus. 😉

Over the years, those of us who believe in God have taken many a lump from the ‘Amazing Randi’ for our apparent ‘stupidity’ so it is ironic to see Randi photographed with a person of such unparallelled and unabashed faith.

TAM skeptics are something of an embarrassment to real sceptics. They consist primarily of science fan boys who put their politics before their critical thinking abilities. They are good at debunking haunted houses and tarot card readings, but not much good at anything actually important.

@rogerknights says:
July 13, 2013 at 9:27 pm
“Four months ago, in March, Steve McIntyre pointed out the same thing in Mann’s AGU presentation:
“There were two components to Mann’s AGU trick. First, as in Mann and Kump, Mann compared model projections for land-and-ocean to observations for land-only. In addition, like Santer et al 2008, Mann failed to incorporate up-to-date data for his comparison.”http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/02/mikes-agu-trick/ ”
I think, as important to harp on as Mann’s Three Card Monty games in comparing temperatures from unrelated scales, it should be emphasized that he’s actually comparing reality to Ouija Board predictions. Note that “…Mann compared MODEL PROJECTIONS…” (my emphasis). Model projections are not reality. Further, computer climate models are proven, again and again and again to be unable to model all the myriad factors that add up to “climate.” All Mann and his modelers have is guesswork. That they’ve got very high-tech programming, and that those computers are very high end, and that those computers can, in fact, be used successfully in experimentation and crunching numbers, and yes, that watching models can in fact help us to glimmer to an understanding of certain processes by acting as a possible example of what might happen in isolation with controlled factors, all does not change that at the end of the day, their results are nothing more than guesswork, and several layers of abstraction away from the real world.
Should we all bow down to Mann and believe he’s speaking ex cathedra simply because he’s got a computer-generated guess? It’s nothing but a high-tech fortune cookie, buddy.
Once upon a time, people built orreries based on the Ptolemaic view of the universe. His view had epicycles, it had to be frequently tweaked, it was always inaccurate, it was all patches and band-aids and fixes, but it sorta, kinda, maybe worked. Sometimes. Yes, it could be used to predict things like eclipses with a certain amount of accuracy (within a few nights or weeks, but hey, it’s not like anyone had anything better to do: they didn’t have reality TV…), but it did NOT describe how the solar system operated. Yet it was also used as proof to show that the Earth was the center of the Universe—was indeed based on that well known ‘fact’.
How are any of the climate computer models, the results of which are being propounded as if they are incontrovertible fact, different from a Ptolemaic Orrery? I haven’t the skills to do a statistical comparison of the relative performance of the two, but I’d guess that none of the present computer climate models are even as accurate as the old Ptolemaic Orreries.
To the Alarmists: free your minds, and the rest will follow. And stop believing that just because the results came from a computer, that it’s true (No, I know: it’s not The Sims. Get over it).

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy